In other scales, like TT, H0 or N, there are common standards for modular layouts, allowing people to build modules, and assemble them when desired. Is there something like this for T-gauge?With my T-gauge start set sent today, I would gladly plan like this.

There's nothing been formulated at all for T gauge.....and to be truthful, there's not yet enough support for the gauge for there to be any dire need for anything for the time being.

Having said that, what you're suggesting may be a good idea for us to keep in mind for the mid to long-term future should interest increase. And it would make sense for this forum to be the "home" for such a standard. I can remember looking at a standard document for one of the larger gauges some time ago....and thinking that a similar standard could quite easily be put together for T.

I think at present, it may be worth just collecting ideas....and then see how things progress over the six months or so.

The T-Trak group has proposed a T-gauge variant of their popular N gauge system. I took a good look at it when considering a modular approach for my next layout, and a variation of it could be workable. Its big problem is that there aren't enough T gaugers in most areas to make it viable. Its biggest advantage is that, with some modifications, it would be quite practical as a single-owner system where you could guarantee the scenic compatibility. I was looking at having either 2 or 3 rows of approx 42" x 10" long boards on one or more tables.

I was messing around in SCARM some time ago and found that if you use a 180mm square bases you can fit all four types of curves on them.

Track centers from "outside" edge(note that this is using the SCARM inbuilt ruler and the t gauge track doesn't show track centers so they may not be 100% accurate)157.5= ~22.5mm145 = ~ 35mm132.5 = ~ 47.5mm122 = ~ 60mmbase 180mm x 180mmHere is a screen shot of the SCARM file.(because it won't let me upload the SCARM file itself )

I can imagine problems with alignment of track that goes right up to the edge of the layout section. Get one curve section 0.1mm out of alignment....and there's no way it will connect with another where the mating track is 0.1mm out in the opposite direction.

The method used in the NTRAK standard is to stop the track 2 inches short of the edge of the layout section...and for the mating layout section to have its track stopping 2 inches short. There is then a joining straight that is 4 inches long that bridges the gap.....and will absorb any misalignment of up to 0.2mm (or more) each way with ease. I also think the standard advises that bridging sections slightly longer than 4 inches be available to use where the joins are a little short.

For T gauge, I would think using bridging tracks say 30mm long would suffice.

Well, I dont think normalizing module size is a good idea. You can have a tiny curve "cheese slice" sector as a module, a long straight piece, or an entire station, as long as they could be coupled together. In TT, we have this kind of normhttp://www.fktt-module.de/de/node/73where there are a few head piece variants standartized, both in track arrangement and in screw holes to keep it all together. Each module should have at least one, but maybe more of them, and can have any kind of form as desired (flextrack makes it possible). Small errors in arranging the rails are easily compensated when you first connect the module rails (isolated), and then the modules are screwed together.